Author Topic: What about 3D engine ? (Read 208910 times)

jal · « **Reply #90 on:** March 23, 2009, 01:38:23 pm »

Quote from: Plague Bringer on March 23, 2009, 12:19:35 pm

Quote from: Odin on March 22, 2009, 05:39:37 pm
As far as I know, you wouldn't get automatic LoD with md5. You would still have to make some low-poly models.

Odin was referring to the animations. Getting a lower poly model is as simple as pressing a button, as I understand it, and that lower poly model can use the same skeletal animations as the higher poly one. However, with .md3, which uses vertex animation, you would have to rebuild every animation after you lower the poly count, as you're getting rid of and creating new vertexes.

Well, the same things applies to the md3 LODs since they are also skeletal-animated in the modelling application, but I guess the base problem is that no one has the original player model files and animations so they can't be just re-exported.

Jet~ · « **Reply #91 on:** March 23, 2009, 01:47:00 pm »

Well if someone decides to do this then I guess I will check it out but other than that, the old engine works fine for me

.

Plague Bringer · « **Reply #92 on:** March 23, 2009, 01:50:34 pm »

Quote from: jal on March 23, 2009, 01:38:23 pm

Well, the same things applies to the md3 LODs since they are also skeletal-animated in the modelling application, but I guess the base problem is that no one has the original player model files and animations so they can't be just re-exported.

I've done modeling. .md3s are use vertex animation. That's not saved if the model is distorted to such a great degree.

Asvarox · « **Reply #93 on:** March 23, 2009, 02:02:23 pm »

as far i know Ender added md5 support to tremulous

http://www.tremfusion.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=389#p389

jal · « **Reply #94 on:** March 23, 2009, 02:22:41 pm »

Quote from: Plague Bringer on March 23, 2009, 01:50:34 pm

Quote from: jal on March 23, 2009, 01:38:23 pm
Well, the same things applies to the md3 LODs since they are also skeletal-animated in the modelling application, but I guess the base problem is that no one has the original player model files and animations so they can't be just re-exported.
I've done modeling. .md3s are use vertex animation. That's not saved if the model is distorted to such a great degree.

But md3s are only md3s after you export them. Before they are .max and biped files (or .mb, whatever), and those are the ones I'm talking about.

Odin · « **Reply #95 on:** March 23, 2009, 06:55:50 pm »

Quote from: gimhael on March 23, 2009, 12:03:31 pm

Quote from: Odin on March 22, 2009, 05:39:37 pm
Quote from: Plague Bringer on March 22, 2009, 05:30:37 pm
So, how much work is it to coerce the engine into using md5 models?
Well If you're a coder I have made some effort in porting XreaL's MD5 code to ioquake3. You can view the patch here. It doesn't compile at all(I am not especially good at coding in c).
I had a quick look at that patch, and I think it doesn't compile because it's coded for the XReal dynamic lighting. The original Quake 3 dynamic lighting has been completely reworked in XReal.

Yes, I know. The patch code still has various bits of stuff from XreaL it doesn't need. Tr3B(the developer of XreaL) said there is almost no XreaL specific code in the MD5 loading code.

Winnie the Pooh · « **Reply #96 on:** March 23, 2009, 08:57:29 pm »

So, are you planning to work on it enough to take the unnecessary stuff out?

Jet~ · « **Reply #97 on:** March 23, 2009, 11:40:15 pm »

What are the people who are working on it going to do when 1.2 comes out?? Will you continue the project?? If you were going to intergrate it to 1.2 I would imagine that it would be tough to do.

Odin · « **Reply #98 on:** March 24, 2009, 03:37:46 am »

Quote from: Winnie the Pooh on March 23, 2009, 08:57:29 pm

So, are you planning to work on it enough to take the unnecessary stuff out?

No, that code is literally the best I can do. I am not a coder. I was told by Tr3B that the MD5 code can be safely ripped out of XreaL with nothing XreaL-related stuff required.

Bowzer · « **Reply #99 on:** March 24, 2009, 04:27:21 am »

I don't think switching to md5 is going to give you much in speed. You still have to render the triangles basically the same way regardless of the format the model is stored in. Jal is right, the game isn't suited for high end effects, there is too many models on the screen generally.

On the flipside, somebody could grab a copy of the Orange Book and easily implement GLSL and at least get some bumpmapping in that could be disabled by default for something.

Winnie the Pooh · « **Reply #100 on:** March 24, 2009, 08:45:03 am »

Quote from: Bowzer on March 24, 2009, 04:27:21 am

I don't think switching to md5 is going to give you much in speed. You still have to render the triangles basically the same way regardless of the format the model is stored in. Jal is right, the game isn't suited for high end effects, there is too many models on the screen generally.

On the flipside, somebody could grab a copy of the Orange Book and easily implement GLSL and at least get some bumpmapping in that could be disabled by default for something.

This topic is about improving looks not speed. Quake 3 and it's affiliated mods (aka, Tremulous, OpenArena, Doom) are based on good gameplay and not good graphics, hence the downside of the engine's ability to render many triangles at a time. Still, adding md5 support would improve performance and graphics, therefore adding to the reputation of the game, which is what we most definitely want.

jal · « **Reply #101 on:** March 24, 2009, 12:32:45 pm »

Adding md5 (or any other skeletal format) would add some posibilities, but it would not improve performance. Skeletal models are actually slower to proccess. They do have advantages that make them worth it, like animation blending and generally easier artirst usage, but performance is not one of them. The performance gain people is talking about comes given by LODs, and you don't need skeletal models to make LODs, all you need is to get the original model files or to re-create the models from scratch, which would have to be done for switching to skeletal models anyway.

Switching to skeletal models is not just a matter of adding the support for loading and drawing them, btw. All the player model animations system has to be rewritten, the skeletal animation blending has to be implemented, and all the models have to be redone from scratch.

I've done this in Warsow and I know it very well. And I do think skeletal models are worth the work, but people should know this is not just a simple format switch.

Amanieu · « **Reply #102 on:** March 24, 2009, 02:59:17 pm »

Actually I remember Tr3b saying something about md5 being faster because of the way vbos are used with them or something.

Bowzer · « **Reply #103 on:** March 24, 2009, 05:41:46 pm »

Quote from: Amanieu on March 24, 2009, 02:59:17 pm

Actually I remember Tr3b saying something about md5 being faster because of the way vbos are used with them or something.

You can use VBO's with any model format.

In the end you're going to be rendering an array of vertexes. Whether it's loaded in as an md2, or md3, or md5, it's not going to matter much. There may be slight differences in the process of animation(but in the end, you're still rending a single frame of an array of vertexes), and that is where the bottleneck occurs. Model format has little effect on peformance, and as Jal explained, skeletal animation is slightly slower because of the extra processing that must be done.

As far as Xreal goes, it's a very nice engine, but I doubt would be practical for Tremulous. I believe it does shadowmapping, which is a painfully slow process, much like real time reflections(requires multiple renders of the entire scene).

kevlarman · « **Reply #104 on:** March 24, 2009, 06:11:59 pm »

Quote from: Bowzer on March 24, 2009, 05:41:46 pm

Quote from: Amanieu on March 24, 2009, 02:59:17 pm
Actually I remember Tr3b saying something about md5 being faster because of the way vbos are used with them or something.

You can use VBO's with any model format.

In the end you're going to be rendering an array of vertexes. Whether it's loaded in as an md2, or md3, or md5, it's not going to matter much. There may be slight differences in the process of animation(but in the end, you're still rending a single frame of an array of vertexes), and that is where the bottleneck occurs. Model format has little effect on peformance, and as Jal explained, skeletal animation is slightly slower because of the extra processing that must be done.

As far as Xreal goes, it's a very nice engine, but I doubt would be practical for Tremulous. I believe it does shadowmapping, which is a painfully slow process, much like real time reflections(requires multiple renders of the entire scene).

unless you have unanimated models, using vbos requires that you can do the animation in the vertex shader (even with md3, which is a collection of frames, you need to be able to linearly interpolate between frames).

Amanieu · « **Reply #105 on:** March 24, 2009, 06:58:50 pm »

You can enable/disable stuff in Xreal to make it look like anything from the good old q3 engine to a shiny new engine.

Odin · « **Reply #106 on:** March 24, 2009, 09:22:33 pm »

MD5 models are faster because they can reside entirely on the GPU.

jal · « **Reply #107 on:** March 24, 2009, 09:40:07 pm »

I don't know why I bother, but well... MD5 is just a skeletal model format, nothing else. Supporting MD5 doesn't imply you do the vertex transformations in the GPU, nor it means you put the meshes in the vertex buffer objects. Those are particular optimizations of a engine (in this case, xreal) on the way it handles meshes transformations. Implementing the model format doesn't magically add vbo and glsl support to the Q3 renderer. The meshes would be drawn just as they are now, trading the vertex interpolation for vertex-to-bone transformations (the later being a bit more expensive), and trading the use of 3 different models by the transformation of the skeletal pose (the later being a bit less expensive, I think). Things remain more or less the same performance wise.

Odin · « **Reply #108 on:** March 24, 2009, 09:53:07 pm »

Quote from: jal on March 24, 2009, 09:40:07 pm

I don't know why I bother, but well... MD5 is just a skeletal model format, nothing else. Supporting MD5 doesn't imply you do the vertex transformations in the GPU, nor it means you put the meshes in the vertex buffer objects. Those are particular optimizations of a engine (in this case, xreal) on the way it handles meshes transformations. Implementing the model format doesn't magically add vbo and glsl support to the Q3 renderer. The meshes would be drawn just as they are now, trading the vertex interpolation for vertex-to-bone transformations, and trading the use of 3 different models by the transformation of the skeletal pose. Things remain more or less the same performance wise.

The big difference here is that you can create LOD models without having to re-do the animations for every lod model.

It would be best to obtain the source model(.blend perhaps?) and re-export it with lod models, if it's possible.

The alien models can also benefit by being able to have the walk animation running while they are doing the taunt animation or attack animation.

jal · « **Reply #109 on:** March 24, 2009, 10:05:59 pm »

Odin, yeah, I agree with that (I said it at one of my posts, I think).

Asche · « **Reply #110 on:** March 28, 2009, 11:32:08 pm »

Someone know "kkrieger"?

3D fps game which size 96kb ...

Here the quality of the textures in-game :

Amazing.... http://www.theprodukkt.com/kkrieger

Release on years 2000

Winnie the Pooh · « **Reply #111 on:** March 29, 2009, 12:40:58 am »

I think it's still too beta to be trying it.

Also, if we were to switch to that engine, we would have absolutely NO support for low-graphics people. You can't even turn the settings down.

David · « **Reply #112 on:** March 29, 2009, 01:53:38 am »

Is that all procedurally generated?

rotacak · « **Reply #113 on:** March 29, 2009, 02:30:51 am »

In kkrieger game I like that light effects when you shooting that big ball bombs with lights.

Plague Bringer · « **Reply #114 on:** March 29, 2009, 02:44:44 am »

Never worked on my PC.

mooseberry · « **Reply #115 on:** March 29, 2009, 02:59:10 am »

It was ok.

Asche · « **Reply #116 on:** March 29, 2009, 10:45:58 am »

I posted kkriger only for show an amazing graphique engine, not for switch to kkriger engine :p

Odin · « **Reply #117 on:** March 30, 2009, 02:58:09 am »

Quote from: David on March 29, 2009, 01:53:38 am

Is that all procedurally generated?

No, the textures are actually taken from DirectX's sample texture pack.

Hendrich · « **Reply #118 on:** March 30, 2009, 03:56:59 am »

Even though its 96kb, that doesn't mean it the game doesn't create hundreds of megabytes in the virtual memory just to create and display the data used in the game.

Bowzer · « **Reply #119 on:** March 30, 2009, 09:35:35 pm »

KKrieger is a tech demo, it's not even remotely practicle for using in a game. It's extremely slow rendering, even with levels and models that have minimal detail.

I think Qfusion pretty much has everthing you are looking for, and would still be scalable for lower end systems. From what I understand IOQ3 is never going to be adding any hi end rendering fx, so you're gonna be stuck in 1999 visually with that engine.

News:

Author Topic: What about 3D engine ? (Read 208910 times)